Hi Thomas,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 3:05 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 11:48:34AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > El El lun, 20 ene 2025 a las 10:21, Sergio Paracuellos <
> > sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> >
> > > Hi all!
> > >
> > > Ralinks SoCs have a system controller node which serves as clock and reset
> > > providers for the rest of the world. This patch series introduces clock
> > > definitions for these SoCs. The clocks are registered in the driver using
> > > a bunch of arrays in specific order so these definitions represent the
> > > assigned
> > > identifier that is used when this happens so client nodes can easily use it
> > > to specify the clock which they consume without the need of checking
> > > driver code.
> > >
> > > DTS files which are currently on tree are not matching system controller
> > > bindings. So all of them are updated to properly match them.
> > >
> > > I'd like this series to go through kernel mips git tree if possible.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for your time.
> > >
> > > Changes in v3:
> > > - Address Krzysztof comments in v2 (Thanks!):
> > > + Drop reset include file since what it was defined there were hardware
> > > constants and no binding related indexes at all.
> > > + Update patches for not referring to this reset removed file.
> >
> >
> > I was expecting this series going through the mips tree.
>
> DTC arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/rt3883_eval.dtb
> Error: /local/tbogendoerfer/korg/linux/arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/rt3883.dtsi:2.1-9 syntax error
> FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree
Weird, it looks like dtc is not happy with the "include" line with new
definitions? Are you getting this only with rt3883? Since all the
patches are almost the same and I compile tested this before sending..
Something got corrupted? I don't have my laptop now to check but I
will recheck again on monday.
Thanks,
Sergio Paracuellos
>
> that's what I get after applying the series building for RT3883.
>
> Thomas.
>
> --
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
> good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
